In this week's Analysis Behind the News video, JBS CEO Art Thompson discusses how none of the Republican candidates for president is talking about repealing the 16th (income tax) and 17th (direct election of senators) Amendments that were ratified in 1913; how the 16th amendment gave the federal government power over individuals; how the 17th amendment destroyed one of the key checks and balances within our system of federalism by taking away the power of each state legislature to appoint two senators to represent its state in the U.S. Senate; and how we must start the process of repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments by waging an “educational war” to point out why this must be done.

This Article recreates the original definitions of the U.S. Constitution’s terms “tax,” “direct tax,” “duty,” “impost,” “excise,” and “tonnage.” It draws on a greater range of Founding-Era sources than accessed heretofore, including eighteenth-century treatises, tax statutes, and literary source, and it corrects several errors made by courts and previous commentators. It concludes that the distinction between direct and indirect taxes was widely understood during the Founding Era, and that the term “direct tax” was more expansive than commonly realized.

The Article identifies the reasons the Constitution required that direct taxes be apportioned among the states by population. It concludes that the Constitution’s “three-fifths” formula was a response to certain economic facts about slavery, but that the underlying decision to apportion had little or nothing to do with slavery.

Finally, the Article reviews the Supreme Court’s holding that the Affordable Care Act’s penalty for not acquiring insurance is a tax but not a direct tax, and concludes that if the penalty was a tax, it was direct.

In this week's Analysis Behind the News video, JBS CEO Art Thompson discusses how none of the Republican candidates for president is talking about repealing the 16th (income tax) and 17th (direct election of senators) Amendments that were ratified in 1913; how the 16th amendment gave the federal government power over individuals; how the 17th amendment destroyed one of the key checks and balances within our system of federalism by taking away the power of each state legislature to appoint two senators to represent its state in the U.S. Senate; and how we must start the process of repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments by waging an “educational war” to point out why this must be done. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wL6g2c8P6Y

What the Constitution Means by 'Duties, Imposts, and Excises' —

And 'Taxes' (Direct or Otherwise)

Robert G. Natelson

The Independence Institute

May 4, 2015

Abstract:

This Article recreates the original definitions of the U.S. Constitution’s terms “tax,” “direct tax,” “duty,” “impost,” “excise,” and “tonnage.” It draws on a greater range of Founding-Era sources than accessed heretofore, including eighteenth-century treatises, tax statutes, and literary source, and it corrects several errors made by courts and previous commentators. It concludes that the distinction between direct and indirect taxes was widely understood during the Founding Era, and that the term “direct tax” was more expansive than commonly realized.

The Article identifies the reasons the Constitution required that direct taxes be apportioned among the states by population. It concludes that the Constitution’s “three-fifths” formula was a response to certain economic facts about slavery, but that the underlying decision to apportion had little or nothing to do with slavery.

Finally, the Article reviews the Supreme Court’s holding that the Affordable Care Act’s penalty for not acquiring insurance is a tax but not a direct tax, and concludes that if the penalty was a tax, it was direct.

Gary Porter of Virginia, Executive Director of the Constitution Leadership Initiative and Convention of States supporter, shows that the federal government follows a new 3000 page Constitution, not the Constitution as written in 1787.

Thomas Jefferson's vision was that the smallest and most local government would maximize individual freedoms and best serve the public good. In a letter to Tom Pinkney, Jefferson stated: "Both of our political parties, at least the honest part of them, agree conscientiously in the same object --- the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. One side believes it best done by one composition of the governing powers; the other, by a different one. One fears most the ignorance of the people; the other, the selfishness of the rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove."

This vision was embodied in the Constitution and the first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights. In this century, the power of the federal government has grown enormously because America has been diverted from this vision by changes made in the Constitution.

After the Bill of Rights, the next five amendments dealt primarily with slavery, civil rights, and voting. These increase individual freedoms, which is the antithesis of an increase in the federal government.

The Sixteenth Amendment reads: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Before this, the Constitution in Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4, prohibited any head, individual, or capitation tax. It read: "No Capitation, or other direct Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." The Sixteenth Amendment, which made the income tax constitutional, caused radical and profound changes.

Agitation for a personal, graduated income tax (as called for in Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto of 1848) began again in earnest in the early 1890s. The Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in 1894. The Sixteenth Amendment was submitted to the States on July 9, 1909, and was declared ratified (improperly, many claim) on February 25, 1913. The pretext used to sell the American people on it was to pay off the national debt of one billiondollars (now at $5 trillion).

The income tax drains money from the labor and capital of the American people. Before 1913, the federal government derived sufficient money to pay for its constitutionally delegated functions from "Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises" as authorized per Article I, Section 8, Paragraph l.

The Sixteenth Amendment allows the income tax to raise vast amounts of revenues to finance the unconstitutional activities of the federal government.

Compassionate Americans are concerned about social problems. When asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton replied "because that is where the money is." Likewise, social activists turn to the federal treasury, rather than other avenues, because "that is where the money is." Although the causes may sound good, the Constitution does not authorize (and thus forbids) federal social programs. Besides, time has proven that it is counterproductive for the federal government to administer welfare programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). It is also counterproductive for it to administer farm subsidies, corporate welfare, etc.

The concentration of power and money in Washington not only produces counterproductive programs; it produces unconstitutional programs. It is bad enough that Congress does not debate the constitutionality of its legislation, but it is inexcusable for the Supreme Court to legitimize it. Thomas Jefferson warned about it "...that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping by little and little, the foundation of the constitution." By declaring these programs constitutional, the Supreme Court ignores Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 18 and the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The latter reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Law by precedent corrupts the U.S. Constitution.

By ignoring the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court clears the way for the unconstitutional proliferation of most federal regulatory agencies. These include many cabinet departments, the FDA, EPA, etc. When our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they made it a living document by allowing for change. At that time, there was very little need for environmental protection. Even now it may be inappropriate. But if so, there should be a constitutional amendment to authorize it rather than controvert the Fifth Amendment, which reads: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

This concentration of income tax dollars in Washington causes law by precedence to corrupt the Supreme Court. The lower courts follow this lead via judicial activism, which produces the capricious rule of man rather than the just rule of law.

The income tax permits the subtle lure of tax incentives to become a powerful molder of public policy. The interest deduction encourages home mortgages rather than home ownership. Job-based tax exclusions result in employer-controlled health care and retirement. Tax breaks for shelter, health care, and retirement are but some of the major problems. There are countless others.

Time has proved it futile to legislate reactionary laws to "fix" these various problems. Each time our government attempts this, it leads to increased costs and regulations. Our Founding Fathers understood this, which is why they prohibited an income tax in the original Constitution. It concentrates too much power in Washington, which creates a climate where the special interest groups dominate. There is an obvious solution with precedence. The Eighteenth Amendment for prohibition of liquor was counterproductive and was repealed 14 years later by the TwentyFirst Amendment. It reads: "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed."

The Sixteenth Amendment usurps money and power from individuals, lower governments, and other institutions. It concentrates this in Washington, which leads to counterproductive and unconstitutional federal policies. It corrupts our courts. It decreases individual freedoms.

It is time to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.

Dr. Loftman is a neurosurgeon in private practice in Atlanta, Georgia, and Director of Citizens for an Alternative Tax System, 1 (800) 767-7577.

In the preceding three articles in this section, The Constitution - Plain and Simple, which I have authored (1-3), and in the commentary, "The Sixteenth Amendment" by Bert Loftman, MD (4), we have seen how our constitution, the Law of the Land, has been abused and disused both by those who are sworn to defend and uphold it, and those who have fallen asleep at their post, shirking their duties as befit informed and vigilant citizens of our Constitutional Republic.

Another glaring example of the deviation we have taken from the vision of our Founding Fathers is the method of selection of our U.S. Senators.

Article I, Section 3 of the September 17, 1787 Constitution (ratified by the requisite nine States as per Article VII on June 21, 1788) mandates: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof...." For a century and a quarter, Senators were appointed by their respective State Legislatures.

The brilliant and ingenious Masterbuilders of our Ship of State sat representatives chosen by and beholden to the people (We the People...) in one wing of the Capitol (called Representatives --- as Abraham Lincoln, four score and seven years later proclaimed, "of the People, by the People, and for the People") to check and oversee the actions of those sitting in the other wing of the Capitol (called Senators), sent there as representatives chosen by and beholden to the States. In like fashion, the Senators of the States, by the States, and for the States are to check and oversee the Representatives of the people.

The Representatives are to push the people's (their constituents) interest. The Senators are to push their State's interest. Each is to protect and promote who sent him to Washington. To see that the one does no harm to the other, the Framers ordered both Houses of Congress must concur on a matter.

Since the several States formed the Union, and since the creature is never greater than the creator (whether the relationship be man vis-à-vis God; or the Federal government vis-à-vis the States), the Senate was constituted by the founding several States to assure that the interest and status and retained autonomy and rights of each of the several States was not eroded or usurped by the Representatives of the people, and vice versa --- preventing the States from invading the rights, prerogatives, and freedoms retained by the people.

This ingenious relationship worked to the benefit of all for 125 years (from 1788 to 1913). It worked so well, in fact, that power-hungry politicians were stymied by it in their lust for personal power. So those who wished to amass personal power set out to convert this representative Constitutional Republic, governed by the rule of law, into a despotic, tyrannical democracy, governed by the capricious rule of men. But they found themselves chained down, fenced in, and thwarted in their desire to control the lives of others by this provision in the original Constitution --- that Senators be responsible to the Legislature of their State.

So those seekers of power cunningly and knowingly and dishonestly promoted the idea of the popular election of Senators to break away the Constitutional armor that guarded the freedoms enjoyed by Americans from oppressive government. By deceptive rhetoric, they claimed that "in this democracy" it was "undemocratic" for the "people" to be denied "their right" to directly elect "their Senators." They claimed that Article I, Section 3 of the original Constitution that provided for Senators to be appointed by their State Legislature was outmoded, and that it had served well for the 1787 agrarian economy, but that the new, modern 1913 industrialized economy called for an updating. (Sound familiar? The same excuses are now given for scrapping the 1787 Constitution in toto and substituting an already prepared entirely "updated" new one!)

The subversion was successful, and on May 31, 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified which inaugurated the popular election of Senators in these words: "Section 1. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof...."

And, thereby, secure individual freedom in the American Republic of these United States became the tyrannical democracy of THE STATE --- an all powerful, unchecked, and unbalanced mobocracy of manipulated whim and fancy. Freedom of the individual went out the window, and in came the controlled and controlling central bureaucracy, under which we now suffer economically, spiritually, and physically.

The declaration of the plight of the American Colony subjects of King George III in 1776, enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, are with us again in 1996, due in large measure to the Seventeenth Amendment that disenfranchised the State governments.

By the 1787 Constitution (ratified in 1788), the individual States are to be uniform in only two or three matters (e.g., rules of Naturalization, bankruptcy, weights and measures, patents, etc.) and in all others, they are supposed to be different, as decided by the citizens of each State and determined by each State's Constitution and Legislature.

For instance, voter requirements (Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 1 and the Seventeenth Amendment itself in Section 1, Paragraph 1) are to be different in each State as each State Constitution decides. In both instances, the stipulation is "...the Electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." The Federal Justice Department, the Supreme Court, and the Congress are forbidden to set voter requirements --- but they have. And the one man one vote tyranny (that has stymied the delicately crafted balance of power created by our framers between the states and the people as well as between the states and the federal government) that we now have came about because of the Seventeenth Amendment.

Speed limits; crime control, investigation, and punishment; voter requirements; etc., are to be as each State's Constitution stipulates and each State's Legislature decides, and therefore often different.

The competition between/among the States for citizens and business and commerce will curb any excesses, plus or minus.

When one State's regulations are onerous, people and business would move to a State with more favorable regulations. The chase-away State would be spurred to change its regulations in order to recoup its loses, and the attractive State would be encouraged to make even more favorable regulations. But when a Federal mandate intervened with unsupervised, popularly-elected U.S. Senators and imposed national uniformity, there was (and there remains) no place to run.

(This column on the Constitution appears in the Medical Sentinel to remind us that it is the unConstitutional (and thus illegal) activities in medicine and all other facets of our lives that have trampled on and outlawed our God-endowed freedom and liberty.)

By repealing the 17th Amendment, power will be returned to “We the People” and away from special interest groups, Jackson told the committee. “I think our Senators should go to Washington, D.C. every week, but they should come home every Friday and meet with leadership in both houses of the state legislatures to get direction on how they should vote the following week.”

According to Jackson, the national debt can be blamed on the 17th Amendment. The U.S. went from owing $807.00 per person in 1900 to well over $50,000 per person today. This is because in 1913 (the year the 17th Amendment was drafted and ratified), our Senators went from savers to spenders. “Because, if you think about it, how do you stay in office? You stay in office by providing goodies to the people. You stay in office by taking from those who have and giving it to those who have not. If you are beholden to the popular vote, you will have a propensity to do that. But if you’re beholden to the legislature that has put you in office and pays your salary, you will be more cognizant and more aware of what your states’ needs are. Right now in Washington, D.C., the states are not represented,” said Jackson.

Private citizen Larry Mulcock commended SJR 2, but suggested that Jackson run a bill version saying that U.S. Senators from Utah will be elected by the Utah State Senate instead. “It’s going to raise a lot of hair on the back of people’s necks, but what it’s going to do is start educating the people, I like the idea but it’s kind of going to disappear. But if you pass a statute that says, in contradiction to the Constitution, that we are going back to the original Constitution and having our Senators elected by our State Senate, then I think that’s the kind of battle and the kind of assertiveness that we’re going to have to initiate in order to take back our legislative rights and to push back the federal overreach,” said Mulcock.

Maryann Christensen, executive director of the Utah Eagle Forum, believes repeal is the best step forward to save states from federal tyranny. “We’re bearing the crushing burdens of government run amok simply because the states cannot keep the federal government in check anymore.”

Members of the committee chose to move the legislation forward on a party-line vote, with Republican Senators Margaret Dayton (Orem), Lyle Hillyard (Logan), David Hinkins (Orangeville), Daniel Thatcher (West Valley City), and Jackson in favor. Salt Lake City Senator Luz Escamilla, the committee’s lone Democrat, voted against the resolution.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Tennessee has become the fifth state to call for a Convention of States that would amend the U.S. Constitution in an effort to take back states’ rights and limit the power of the federal government.

The Tennessee House of Representatives voted 59-31 on Feb. 4 in favor of SJR 0067, a resolution “to make application to the Congress of the United States to call an Article V convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the United States Constitution.”

Article V states in part, “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof…”

SJR 0067 outlines the belief that a convention is necessary as the federal government has “invaded the legitimate roles of the states through the manipulative process of federal mandates and has”ceased to operate under a proper interpretation of the United States Constitution.”

“Be it resolved … that this legislative body does hereby apply to Congress under the provisions of Article V of the United States Constitution for the calling of a convention of the states, limited to proposing amendments to the United States Constitution that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress,” it reads.

The resolution was signed by Gov. Bill Haslam on Tuesday. It had been approved by the state Senate 23-5 last April.

“Our Founding Fathers would be appalled by today’s federal overreach,” Rep. Jay Reedy, R-Dist. 74, said in a statement. “In their wisdom, the delegates at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 unanimously inserted into Article V the power of the States to be the final check on the federal government.”

“Since our founding, the Article V convention process has only been used by the Congress and not by the States,” he continued. “It is clear that Congress does not have the political will to solve our country’s problems, but thankfully, we the people of the Volunteer State do.”

Passage of a resolution calling for a convention is necessary in 34 states for Congress to act. According to reports, 33 other states are considering the move. Alabama, Alaska, Florida and Georgia have already passed resolutions and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called for a convention last month.

At the upcoming meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the final phase of the Assembly's rules writing process will come to a completion. Located at the National Constitution Center, just down the street from Independence Hall where the US Constitution was drafted, currently-serving state legislators will make the final edits to the drafted rules on Thursday and Friday morning. Then in the early afternoon session on Friday, the goal is to sign the rules, recommending the to be adopted for any future Article V conventions.

​

Dates:Thursday, June 16 - Friday, June 17, 2016

City: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Location: National Constitution Center located on Independence Mall

Room: Kirby Auditorium

Schedule: Check-in begins at 8:30 am on Thursday, with the meeting convening at 9:00 am. The meeting will adjourn for the day at 4:00 pm on Thursday, reconvene on Friday at 8:30 am, and complete its business by 2:00 pm on Friday.